1. Police ( the MN Police Notorious in the news of late) should not have been called on board (Robert Jones, attorney at law stated so explicitly). Instead, a negotiator or representative, according to wrote protocol, is first called on board to speak to the involved parties, before any police action is Invoked.

Wanton harassment under abuse of homeland security policy:The flight attendant, Sherrie Caudell, accused James’ mother of having a suspicious/ conspicuous bag, stating twice, for many others to here, such was the verbal accost, “Is there a problem here?!!”Sherrie Caudell has only served to underscore and highlight her innate hostility and training-mitigated paranoia, substantiating and verbalizing on stand “we are trained to kill before we are killed!!!” with vehemence and hostility in her tone.

Flight attendant Sherrie Caudell, in keeping with the abovedemeanor, called out, “those guys are lunatics!!!” over the open P/A system, acting in breach of protocol and gross dereliction of duty in the capacity of malicious actions.When questioned about her behavior on stand, she retorted sharply “you know what?!!- I don’t care who heard!!!”

Further harassment on the part of Sherrie Caudell:Following a passenger (James) down the entire length of the aircraft isle, raising her voice and shouting accusations in protest of James not having acknowledged her in the isle! Again, she has acted in wanton harassment and with capricious intent, in dereliction of duty.

6. Profiled by MN Police at Airport: In their originalreports, officer Wingate states he walked back to officerMilton, who explicitly said to him, he did “not feelcomfortable with James walking off the aircraft uncuffed”,with instruction to “cuff him as soon as possible!”

***Note that in all of the airport minority profiling…documented, the common theme presented by profiling bodies, is that they do not feel comfortable…In other words, their own biases lead them to make prejudiced assumptions which they then arbitrarily act on.)As such, sergeant Milton instructed officer Wingate to handcuff James “as soon as possible”. This, again, is blatant profiling, which is in breach of protocol. It is also evidence that they were lying to James when they said (in front of the passengers) that James was ‘not under arrest.’

Brutal assault and battery, with tasers used on an individual who, by the officers’ own words, had committed no crime, was not under arrest and was not being charged.A totally unwarranted racial hate crime/attack.

a. False framing: The alleged act of head butting or assaulton officer Hoerdt did not take place! It wasa fabricated event used to excuse the officers from anotherwise unlawful assault and battery.B. Concealing evidence: Only 4 of the 5 officers submittedincident reports.C. Falsified police reports given to reflect a false history of events, conceal truth and conceal their culpability under law.D. Officer shell game: * False police reports made to reflectfalse positioning and falsified identity of the police officers, in order to facilitate plausibility of the frame up and the alleged crime. James is accused of assault on an officer, who was not accessible to him, positioned no less than 3 officers distant from James in single file orientation in the narrow confines of an isle aboard an aircraft. The officers have falsified purported positions-an officer ‘shell game’ in essence, in order to facilitate a frame up scenario. Evidence of that shell game and their true positions is now available and exposed in supplementary material.

Some severe police and FBI infractions/ misconduct and breaches in protocol follow:

Officer cooper’s badge number was not provided to us at the time of the incident. It was deliberately withheld. Officers also subsequently denied the presence of 5 officers on board the aircraft, falsely maintaining that there were only 4. Blatant occlusion of evidence. They were hiding the truth.…

In this same spirit of exemplifying their occlusion of evidence, I relate thefollowing:

Sergeant cooper did not submit a report at all, until months later, 3 days before the trial, following breach in protocol by Peace Officer Standards and Training (P.O.S.T.) which forwarded James’ complaint to FBI, MN Airport police and the Prosecution! The report indicated that James had become aware of the presence and identity of the fifth officer.Immediately subsequent to this, cooper submitted a report.P.O.S.T. has aided and abetted in collusion and occlusion or truth.

A secret meeting meant to facilitate conspiracy andocclusion of truth:

According to James’ former attorney, Robert Jones, of Carlson and Jones, Officer Cooper and the prosecuting attorney, and FBI secretly met the Friday before the Monday trial, in order that the prosecuting attorney could coach the officers on what to say, subsequent to receipt of James’ report to P.O.S.T., which P.O.S.T. had forwarded to the prosecution in order to facilitate further occlusion of truth.

Peace officer standards and training a party to corruption conspiracy and occlusion of truth:

As stated above, P.O.S.T. (Peace Officer Standards and Training) did not respond to James following a complaint submitted by James to P.O.S.T., but instead, took his report and submitted it to the FBI and the prosecuting attorney in order that they be able to use the information contained in the context of aiding and abetting perjury and occlusion of truth at trial.*** Hard copy evidence is available in paper format and as scanned in documentation, and has been widely dispersed as such.)

FBI agent Marc A. Rensch perjures himself on standat James’ bail hearing, stating, “James resistance became progressively heightened…” whereas, in his original state charges report, Rensch states James got up and immediately head butted the officer. The deliberate and premeditated change in his verbal statement made on stand, was done to corroborate the statements made by the airport police involved, who state (correctly) that James got up and began to collect his belongings. They also claim (falsely) to have asked James repeatedly to place his hands behind his back. A time inconsistency presented and ‘needed’ correction to facilitate their lies; a certain passage of time prior to the alleged assault (resistance progressively heightened) was thus necessary to support this, hence FBI agent Marc Rensch’s perjury and self-contradiction on stand, contrary to his original written account, was made in order to facilitate the passage of time required in keeping consistent with the false allegations and frame up.

9. No Miranda rights read at the time of the attack or at anytime thereafter, by the officers involved, yet held in jail 9days, regardless.

11. James’ standard issue calling card disabled/ sabotaged,rendering him unable to communicate with lawyer, family or Canadian consulate.

12. Illegal threats and intimidation have been rampant and are almost inexhaustive in scope

“The U.S. Marshals Will GET YOU- They’ll HUNT YOU DOWN!!!”I am still in shock over the comments of Sr District Court Judge David S. Doty in the closing moments of our trial as I detail in the following:

***Judge Doty has a history of criminal charges!- and allegations against him as can be seen at the following web address: http://www.clr.org/fed-judges.html Of course his position as Senior District Court Judge has granted him immunity from due accountability under the law.

At the close of our trial Judge Doty threatened to have the U.S. Marshalls follow us “to the ends of the earth”, likening them to their Hollywood depictions, in the context of warning me that I had ought not fail to appear in attendance for the forthcoming sentencing subsequent to the (corrupted) trial. His threats came amongst a myriad of threats we have been inundated with accompanying the barbaric assault and battery. Judge Doty stated “and I’ll tell you right now, if you don’t show up for sentencing, I’ll send the U.S. Marshalls out hunting for you; He then likened his scenario to Hollywood, stating further “and Don’t Think It’s Not Like Hollywood because it is-they overdo the FBI in the movies – but Not the U.S. Marshals- THEY’LL HUNT YOU DOWN-EVEN YEARS LATER THEY’LL GET YOU…”Years from now they’ll pull you out of another country if they have to. I’ve seen it happen many times before!…But I’m not to worried (coyly) we have a pretty good relationship with Canada right now so I don’t see that being a problem at all.The US Marshals Do Not Have Authority To Come Up Into Canada to ‘Get ME’ as Judge Doty had threatened, rendering his words immoral improper, abuse of position and authority and most importantly, LEGALLY BINDING AS UTTERING THREATS! Now assuming the dictation writer did her job and included his comments (instead of selectively leaving them out…)then a record of judge Doty’s threats rendition should be available in the official Court Transcripts.

Judge David S. Doty Sr District Court Judge MN has corrupted himself entirely in this matter: He has facilitated the use of illegal application of law in allowing prosecution court room theatrics, a* corrupted jury pool (other mentions of *such jury tampering now *pervade the news) corrupted ‘blue collar’ (pre ordained/corrupted) jury pool with NSA, FBI, *CIA, MN Police, Security, prosecuting attorneys and NWA employees as its components, and even more incredulous, the uttering of threats against us in the closing moments of the trial to the effect of threatening illegal U.S. Marshal entry into Canada to "Get" us, having made this threat on repeated occassions during the trial itself. Judge Doty has truly placed himself above the law and beyond the law.

FBI were brought in to question James’ in conjunctionwith James’ calling card having been disabled. James felt forced into speaking to FBI in order to preserve his own personal safety under the conditions.

A systemic practice of threats made unto inmates in the elevator shaft, while being transported up to the courthouse, presented itself quite clearly.

Threats in elevator shaft/ guards at Hennipen county jailare cited as musing about choking people out and then taking photos of this act while in progress.

Border threat:

Only several days later after having returned from the incident in the U.S., James received a call from U.S. customs officer, Chris Nissan, at customs. Customs/border personnel employee Chris Nissan threatened James, as to what might happen to him when he returned to the border for trial. Chris Nissan indicated that they had reason to believe James had violated court imposed mandate stipulating that James must use transportation by means other than air (a human rights violation in itself, given that James is innocent). He claimed, on behalf of Northwest Airlines, that James was in breach of a court imposed ‘no-fly’ order, in having flown back to Canada instead of having taken “means other than air travel”.

As James stood there with his greyhound ticket in hand and his mother listening on in shock, Chris Nissan of U.S. customs stated ominously, “you’re going to have some big problems when you come back to the border!!” in conjunction with instructing James in bringing a last month’s rent statement and completing other unusual tasks in light of this alleged breach. This was very disturbing.

Preposterous as this was, it also caused James tremendous anxiety, compounding that of the incident itself. This false accusation had quickly become misplaced authoritarianism in conjunction with the issue of threat!

Although James family has addressed these issues of overzealous abuses of authority under false application of homeland security measures with the offices of Vic Toews, Canadian Minister of Justice, his office has been dismissive. It seems both Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety) Toews and PM Steven Harper share in their overzealous militant ideology in favor of humanitarian interests, hence their dismissive behaviour. Having received no indication of advocacy from MN Governor Tim Pawlenty,Canadian Human Rights, Foreign Affairs, or the ACLU, the James Family has now approached Canadian MP Pat Martin, who has also had difficulty with profiling at airports.

***The threatening call to James home was not only unwarranted but also completely unnecessary:James had, by this time, obtained the services of an independent legal attorney and as such, the call should not have gone to James directly. This was entirely improper and reeks of intimidation tactics.

***Threats left on answering machine:

A friend of James’, by the name of Allan bright, had a threatening message left on his answering machine, warning him that he had better “stay out of (their) way”, the implication being quite overt and clear.

Addressing the intimidation component, James clearly illustrates the following tactics that have been used against them in order to intimidate family and friends.

i. Frequent and evenly spaced hang up calls at intervals of approximately 2 hours, with answering machines recording these calls as unidentified, call blocked, at these regular intervals, when people are not there to receive the calls.ii. Voice mail deletions off of the answering machines of those who attempt to assist James has placed a large element of intimidation into the scheme of things, with the intent to dissuade people from assisting, out of fear.iii. Computer Spy Ware sabotage: Accounts closed down, viruses sent, business passwords made defunct and messages indicative of computer hacking into systems (which James has printed out and has had signed as proof!!) making themselves blatantly apparent.

iv. Illegal surveillance by one officer Mark Wrench outside James’ home on or about Jan 27 immediately subsequent to James’ bail hearing. An element of intimidation is certainly inherent herein.

v. A jury pool laced with elements and or associates/ family of FBI, NSA, CIA, MN Police, security, NWA employees, prosecuting attorneys and other conspicuous factions. (More on this later on/ see “Breach of Law and Protocol concerning the nuances of the trial itself***” further ahead in this presentation)

13. Medical attention denied while being held in jail: byDoctor’s orders, James was to receive medical treatment by way of ointment, for the laceration to his head, and have his stitches removed 6 days following the laceration suturing. All medical attention as such, was denied James. Also, medical attention pertinent to treatment for a severe rash James developed due to unsanitary sleeping conditions was also denied.

15. Female guards patrolling cells with full length windowviews into the jail cells, and washroom/ toilet area fullyexposed to outside view.

16. The following is a general human rights violations sectionsummary: (some repetition of above points is present)

· (a) Profiled on the basis of ethnicity, accused of having a suspicious/ conspicuous bag on board the aircraft (which was shown to be false thereafter).· (b) Several days prior to the incident, James’ luggage locks were cut and his baggage detained with airport security, on his way down to Rochester for medical treatment, such that James arrived at his hotel without his belongings.…Airport NWA officials claimed to have ‘misplaced’ his luggage, and then delivered it to the hotel with the luggage rummaged through and the locks cut and missing. More evidence of blatant profiling.

· (c ) James was placed on a no fly list and forced to bus back to Winnipeg, from Minneapolis, following the trials and tribulations of this racial profiling and subsequent to the associated assault and battery. (This constituted a 14-hour bus ride, during which James’ mother was very nearly left behind at one of the stops, by a neglectful driver.· (d) Vicious assault and battery by 5 airport police officers after officers had stated“No you are not under arrest…you are not being charged…and ‘have committed no crime”constituting a severe civil and human rights violation and a criminally culpable assault and battery without cause.

· (e) No Miranda rights read to James by ‘arresting’officers, at any time, yet James was held a total of9 days without cause.

· (f) James was denied all doctor- ordered medicalattention while in jail, regarding follow up care necessary, given the severity of the assault and the injuries he had sustained.

(G) James’ standard issue calling card was disabled in conjunction with FBI interrogation: James effectively had no access to Canadian Consulate, family or legal attorney privileges- This was most certainly a deliberate intimidation tactic.

17.Government impropriety and outright negligence:Evidence of terror-invoking persecution tactics and illegal activity therein, on the part of factions including FBI, NSA (notorious for intimidation tactics) CIA and MN Police, (evidence which we have in our possession as hard copy and has since been disseminated widely) was presented before the following government factions for review. All of the following factions have been delinquent in following up with any kind of review or action:

18. Doctor Impropriety: Doctor Mathew D. Barrett, MD, atFairview Southdale Hospital, Minneapolis MN, who examined James after the incident, filed a medical report in which he explicitly implicates James as having committed the alleged assault/ head butt.James had, as yet, not even been charged.

It is impropriety for a doctor to provide hisown surmise and biased impressions within the scope of amedical report and yet this is exactly what he did.

Moreover, Doctor Mathew D. Barrett, in further abuse ofposition, states obtrusively, that James “needed to be tased” and at another point in the report, that James “required a taser”This is innately offensive, subjective speculation and slander/ defamatory liable that has no place in a medical report.

19.Illegal FBI surveillance (click) outside James’ home:Approximately 2 days after James’ return to Winnipeg, at about 11 pm, James noticed that a car had been idling for some time outside his premises. Pulling the blinds back fully, James visually I.D.’d none other than Jury pool was fixed and prejudiced with secret government agent affiliates- proof of which has been widely distributed through hard copy documentation on the backgrounds of the jury pool members!!By law, the jury pool selection must be a random process, and selection is generally done using voting lists.However, in contrast to the above, this jury pool was most certainly specially selected to suit a specific task- Ensuring a conviction by any means necessary, surreptitiously if necessary. Indeed, the jury pool was laced with family/affiliates and/or members of CIA, FBI, NSA, MN police, military, prosecuting attorneys, Northwest Airlines Employees (the very airline on which the attack occurred), and other conspicuous elements and factions.

Moreover, the issue of racial prejudice comes strongly into play, in that James is a minority and noteworthy is the fact that there was almost no minority representation what so ever on the jury panel selection numbering 45, and the 2 or 3 minorities present were among the conspicuous factions listed above.

Once again, it is duly noted, this jury panel was not random-but fixed with specific task and purpose in mind-prejudicial bias.

20. Both the prosecution and James’ attorney let instances ofobvious and blatant witness perjury go unchallenged.***According to court law excerpt, it clearly states under the code of courtroom ethics, that a prosecuting attorney is obligated to correct for obvious counts of perjury on the part of witnesses, and not let them go unchallenged.In contrast to the above, I cite here that obvious counts of perjury on both the part of Sergeant Cooper and the prosecution’s passenger witness, Kosninsky (both regarding self contradictions pertaining to their actual positions on board the aircraft) went uncorrected and unchallenged before the jury, permitting damaging and falsified information to remain at large amongst the ‘evidence’ presented.

21. Judge David S. Doty biased the jury pool.

In the judge’s opening statements before the commencement of the trial, Judge Doty gave an anecdotal account of a scenario involving a child caught with crumbs on his hands, citing the ‘hands caught in the cookie jar’ dilemma to completion. He stated that if the child had crumbs on his hands that the child obviously had his hands in the cookie jar, in the context of telling the jurors to use common sense and every day judgment in making decisions concerning evidence presented before them.

This was highly prejudicial, for just as this argument was given, there sat Mr. James with a contusion to his head-the alleged ‘crumbs’ and officer Hoerdt set as a witness, having accused James of head butting him. Yet these crumbs were misleading- James had not had his hand in any ‘cookie jar’- James’ contusion, it was later shown, had come from hitting his head on the side panel of one of the chairs in the isle of the craft as a result of having been brutally attacked and tasered to the floor-complete with its own corroborative set of ‘crumbs’ as proof of this fact-the blood remnants on the side panel of the chair.

***The use of the hands in the cookie jar analogy by judge David s. Doty, had evidently set the stage for undue prejudice in the minds of the jurors-and let us not forget that this bias was created within the opening statements at the beginning of the trial, and first impressions are said to be most critical in forming opinions. Judge Doty’s comments had led the jury to lean towards the bias of presumed guilt even before any testimony or evidence had been presented!!

Judge Doty had given a definitive 30 minutes allotted to the preparation of closing arguments to be made.However, after only 15 minutes into the closing prep time, there came a knock at the door, whereupon James and his attorney were forced to return-unprepared-for the presentation of closing arguments. The lawyer’s poor performance as relates to his closing arguments was clearly enunciated within the comments of observing advocate, Bill Cooley, of ‘Communities United Against Police Brutality’ who stated, “I saw absolutely no defense mounted by that lawyer! This is horrible!!”

23. Witnesses on stand making verbal statements in direct contradiction to written statements, is hard evidence of pre-trial Police/FBI witness coaching and cohersion.***Ask yourself: What motivation would the witnesseshave had to change their own statements oftheir own accord? They had no motivation-They were not on trial and had nothing to hide! The fact that witnesses' verbal statements on stand were found to be in direct contradiction to their written statements to the effect of paroting the police statements, was direct evidence of police cohersion of witnesses prior to trial.

The officers however, had much to hide and tremendous motivation in hiding it: They had committed crimes and had used falsified account, frame up, collusion, and occlusion of facts in order to conceal this fact.Motivation was certainly there for officers involved to pressure witnesses into altering statements to suit their needs…

In the context of the above, I relate the fact that passenger Kosninsky states in a written (and similarly falsified) account, that James ‘struck’ the officer (although having said later, on stand, that he was not sure if he saw anything at all). Yet in contrast, on stand, Kosninsky deviates from his written statements, conspicuously changing the term ‘struck’ to ‘head butted’!! Again, this was done so as to be in conformity with police’s falsified allegations.Moreover, as further testimony to Kosninsky’s propensity to falsify according to convenience on stand, Kosninsky is caught perjuring not once- but three times, in the context of falsifying his seating arrangements, in the spirit of claiming to have been in a position where he could have seen the alleged (and fictitious) act.

Obvious police coaching and cohersion is illustrated on yet another count of perjury on the part of ‘witness’ Kosninsky:

On stand, Kosninsky states James grabbed the officer 3rd in line in front of James and head butted him- but this is contradictory to police reports!! why?:

The answer is very telling: Although police tried to play a shell game, James is well aware that the officer in 3rd position (3 officers away from James) in front of James, was in fact Hoerdt- the officer who claims James head butted him. In his written statement months ago, Kosninsky states James struck the officer directly in front of him, yet changes this in his verbal testimony on stand, using the word ‘head butt’ in place of ‘struck’ and changing the position of the supposed assaulted officer to reflect the true position of officer Hoerdt- not directly in front of James as police would have people believe, but in fact, 3 officers distant from James in a single file line…

***Confounded by their own lies:The Police Officers were not careful to further instruct Kosninsky to reflect Hoerdt as having been in his falsely alleged position (directly in front of James) and so they inadvertently had Kosninsky give false verbal testimony on stand (counter indicative to police accounts, no less!) of a head butt that was executed somehow, through several officers unto the target-3 officers distant from James- an impossibility and a ludicrous account!

***The police have been thwarted by their own canivory in the context of having their ‘wires crossed’ amongst illegally cohersed and coached/ counseled witnesses, who have been confounded and counseled on so many lies, that they no longer know how to convey these lies in a plausible fashion (recall witness Kosninsky changing his purported seating arrangement in obvious perjury no less than 3 times- recall Sergeant Cooper having been caught claiming to have been in 2 places at the same time via an error in the details of his frame of reference and vantage point)

24. Witness cohersion on the stand by the prosecuting attorney (illegal):On the stand witness Kosninsky, of his own accord, without prompting, initially states that he is unaware of what actually transpired. He states “I just saw a lot of blood…I was nervous… I saw some jostling.”

Kosninsky then stated “and then I saw James on his back and a lot of blood…I didn’t really see what happened.”Yet subsequent to his statement, the prosecuting attorney, unhappy with his witness, became overbearing, pressuring him further, sternly prompting him “Are you sure you saw a head-butt?!!” The witness floundered for a moment, obviously feeling pressured to give an affirmative response, and finally replied, “Uh…yes…yes, I’m sure.”

25. The definition of assault was expanded needlessly andmaliciously, such that it could encompass the largest scope and garner the best possibility of conviction. (Keeping in mind that James was framed and did not commit any assault or the alleged act, regardless, under any definition or interpretation of the word- yet police lied on stand in order to reflect an account that they hoped would satisfy the expanded definition of assault in at least some fashion.)

The expanded text of the definition is quite inflammatory and prejudicial by design, and reads as follows:

“Proof of an assault resulting in serious bodily injury does not require the intent to cause serious bodily injury. Instead, it merely requires that the defendant assaulted the victim and that the assault happened to result in serious bodily injury.” Yet James had not committed any assault of any kind what so ever! The officer had been nowhere near him- three officers removed in the narrow confines of an isle aboard an aircraft. The allegation was a frame up and the expanded definition of the assault was maliciously intended to make it an easier task for the prosecution to precipitate a conviction!(Again, notice here that the prosecution effectively removed a large amount of the usual burden of proof by defining assault in this fashion…)

26. Perjury by officer Hoerdt and officer Cooper on stand at James’ trial:Again, as touched on earlier in this account, officers engaged in blatant and wanton falsification of facts on stand:

Sergeant Cooper was caught blatantly lying about his position on board the aircraft. At one point, during testimony on stand, he claims to have been in the galley area at the front of the aircraft.Yet in his written statement given to the FBI and the prosecution only 3 days earlier, Cooper states that he saw the back of James head- impossible if he was in the galley at the front of the aircraft, since James was facing the front of the craft at the time of the incident, corroborated by the officer’s own statements no less!!

In fact, Sergeant Cooper was the only officer directly to James’ rear, behind James, in the isle of the aircraft, and submitted a false report under officer Sweigart’s name several months prior (indeed officer ‘Sweigart’s’ report was written from the vantage point of the only officer behind James-Officer Cooper) at the time of the incident. This gave false evidence of an Officer Sweigart having been behind James at the time, when in fact it had been Officer Cooper.

Again, Cooper’s blatant perjury went uncontested by the prosecuting attorney, in breach of courtroom ethics of law.

***Freudian slip? Or an attempt at communicating the truth???: Sergeant Cooper refers to James as ‘the victim’ while on stand! Immediately thereafter, the prosecution jumped in, redressing Sergeant Cooper sternly, “now did you mean victim?!!”, to which Sergeant Cooper- after pausing for a time, stated, “Uh…no…no I did not”

* Notice how quickly the prosecution was to ‘correct'Cooper on his statement- in contrast, notice how delinquentthey had been, by convenience, in addressing his counts ofperjury, as it happened to suit their agenda.This constitutes a complete breach of courtroom ethics anda miscarriage of justice.

Officer Hoerdt’s perjury uncorrected:Similarly, officer Hoerdt, the officer who makes the false claim of assault against James, was also caught in blatant perjury on stand: in Hoerdt’s written statement, Hoerdt states, “I drew my x-26 taser and drive-stunned James in the left chest” after he alleges James head butted him.

Yet, in contrast, on stand he states that they did not taser James until after James was on the ground!! Hoerdt has been caught in blatant perjury herein!!

Yet more poignant and revealing still, is ‘why would he lie about this?!’ The answer is forthcoming as follows:

Recall peace officer standards and training forwarded James’ account of the facts unto the FBI and the prosecuting attorney. Recall the prosecuting attorney met with Police on the Friday, just before the Monday trial, subsequent to receipt of that new information. In that report, James speaks of the brutality of officers tasering him, not only while standing, but again, for a lengthy period of time (10 seconds, by their own written admission) after he lay motionless on the floor with his hands at his sides in non-combatant display.

The police were doubly motivated to perjure on that point:

On the one hand, in order that this not be made apparent to the jury pool and sway sentiment against their favour, police were instructed to specifically deny the fact that James was tased prior to being on the ground.

On the other hand,** a more intricate argument for perjury presents as follows: James had proven that since the officers were in single file and the taser i.d. reports matched Officers Hoerdt and Wingate (who submitted them) as having been the officers who deployed them then Officers Hoerdt and Wingate must have been the two officers most distant from James, since eye witness account would substantiate the fact that the officers who deployed the tasers were at the back of a 4 man line up of officers in front of James- most distant from James. ***This fact meant that James could not have committed the alleged assault- and would act to refute and disprove their arguments for assault entirely.

...Yet by claiming that James was not tased until he was on the floor, and that officers were circled around him (impossible given the dimensions of the isle on this small craft!) officers attempted to remove the single file line up scenario from record and thereby, bypass this confounding evidence against the alleged assault.

27. Court room misconduct on the part of theprosecution:A. Obvious perjury went unchallenged:Obvious perjury on the part of witness Kosninsky and officer Alvin cooper, as relates to self-contradictory evidence regarding their true positions on board the aircraft, went untouched- unchallenged before the jury. The prosecution, under the code of courtroom ethics, has an obligation to correct obvious counts of perjury on the part of witnesses. They were entirely delinquent in this capacity.

The prosecution bullied witness Kosninsky into direct self-contradiction against his previous statement, in attempt to put words into the witness’s mouth corroborating the allegation of a head butt.The prosecution engaged in courtroom theatrics to the effect of giving graphic demonstration of kicking an officer who attempts to hand cuff you, while enunciating “well why don’t you do whatever you want then?!-Hurt him!! Kick him!!!”, despite the fact that it is uncontested that there was no allegation of any kick upon an officer. This was done merely for the effect of melancholy and impressing the jury with impertinent and irrelevant dramatizations.

B. The prosecution used officer achievements and achalades (illegal!) in order to support the credibility of these police witnesses, in breach of code of courtroom ethicshttp://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00530.htmLegal text, whose origin is cited above, states the following in support of this fact:“Admitting evidence about specific instances of conduct supporting the credibility of the eye witnesses is in contravention of Fed.R .Evid 608(b).”The prosecution pointed to the achievements of Officer Hoerdt, in recently effecting the capture of a suspect at the airport. Sergeant Cooper, on the other hand, was similarly built up in the estimation of jurors looking on, wherein the prosecution brought up the recent award that he had been granted.All of this is in breach of the law and courtroom ethics. Why was it allowed?

28. Communications sabotage was used on many levels in order to intimidate, confuse and confound as illustrated in the following:

A. Calling card disabled in the jail: With my calling card rendered inoperative, I was unable to call out to family, attorney or Canadian consulate. A certain level of intimidation was intentioned along with this fact, by design.B. Voice mail messages deleted (mentioned earlier)C. Peace officer standards and training sabotaged our efforts by forwarding our complaint and the nuances of the truth that it exposed, unto the FBI and prosecution, in order that they might lie more effectively in court.D. ***Sabotage of my legal mail from legal clinics (*click to see Evidence!): My mail has now, on numerous occasions, been intercepted by government factions:On one occasion I received a registered mail letter from the African Canadian legal clinic that had been ripped open and its contents removed (absent). It arrived sealed in a plastic envelope belonging to the post office, stating, “we apologize for this incident”Update!: Oct.25/06 My mail has just been sabotaged once again as of today: My Roger long distance phone record account detailing all of my calls since Aug 23 of this year, arrived in my mail box ripped open: clearly my long distance phone calling is being tracked in addition to my phone line being tapped (see next)E.Phone line tapped: Beyond incessant clicking that occurson my line (and now also on the lines of family and friends…) I relate the fact that subsequent to Colin brown of the African Canadian legal clinic and I, having discussed the above noted letter he was intentioned on sending me, the letter arrived, ripped open in the state and condition described above. It is very clear that far beyond any reasonable dought, my line is tapped.

We have been violated throughout and seek vindication

***The list of breaches in protocol I have put forth hereingives strong and irrefutable evidence, backed by example, of the way in which law and order, ethics and protocol, integrity and accountability, have given way along a slippery slope unto the elements of corruption, abuse of authority and position, conspiracy and collusion.

We have been violated by the system in a myriad of ways as illustrated within the scope of this literature, and are seeking that the hyenas and vast array of wrongs that have been committed against us, be duly noted and corrected for under the law –the law properly applied.